How Mad Are We?

[lady_schrapnell]

Last night Becca and I got sucked into watching possibly the most horribly-ill-advised programme ever - or possibly it was genius.  It was "How Mad Are You?" on Horizon, so you can't blame me for the 'mad' in the subject line.  I suppose "Have any been diagnosed with one of these mental health problems, whether or not you're 'recovered', in remission, or just coping really, really well at the moment?" isn't as catchy a title...

If you don't feel like looking at the link, the premise was 5 people who had been diagnosed with depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anorexia, schizophrenia and social anxiety (yes, I know that's six separate disorders - Bec and I went back and forth on that for a bit, and we think the social anxiety is likely to go with the depression, though could be another two entirely), and 5 people who don't have any of these, were stuck together for a week and three mental health professionals tried to figure out who was who.  Part of this involved challenges designed specifically to push someone with a disorder way beyond their comfort levels.  WAY beyond them.  Like doing a stand-up comedy routine in the local pub?  The first day they got there?!?

The thing was, all of the people - professionals and - what would you call them?  contestants? participants? -- alike, were mostly really likable and interesting people, and the professionals were notably devoid of the type of arrogance that can too often come with being an 'expert'.  And it was absolutely fascinating, though we cycled between horror, indignation, admiration and approval at a rate approaching centrifugal separation. 

In the first programme, they did the comedy routine, mucking out amazing amounts of cow excrement in a local farm, and a paint-ball type combat along with a few questionnaires, and a card game, and then the professionals had to choose one person with a disorder and one without.  Bec and I did as well as they did, getting one right and one wrong, though we were sure we'd done better! The good thing was that the guy with O.C.D. (we'd thought he didn't have it) who was spotted was fine with it, while the one who was supposedly problem free (we knew she wasn't) was thrilled to have fooled them and been thought the person most likely to be 'normal'.  Their both being happy took away a lot of our indignation at what could have been a massively exploitative programme.  But we'll see about next week, when they're photographing everyone in white leotards and then making them look at their photos...   (That caused the indignation part of the cycle to cycle back big time for us both.)

One last thought:  apologies for gender stereotypical observations here, but one thing I noticed was that almost all of the women were observing and commenting on the other participants - not in a bitchy sort of way, but thinking about how they interacted with the group or didn't, and just noticing their comfort or lack thereof.  Not one of the men did.  And the three professionals? All male.  They talked about one of the women's style of leading a combat-type game as being defeatist, because she got everyone together and then said something along the lines of "let's go for it, and then even if we lose, we'll still have had fun" - instead of seeing it as being a less-competitve, more comfortable way of playing a game which had nothing riding on it whatsoever.  We thought that was silly.  We think we know the ones with bipolar disorder and depression, and Bec's pretty sure about the person who had anorexia, but I'll report honestly next week on how right we were.  Or otherwise. 

But how the hell did anyone come up with such a - er, - crazy idea for a TV show?
 

Comments

[gair.livejournal.com]

There was a review of it in the Guardian which said that it seemed to be a genuinely interesting, thoughtful programme, and it was just a shame that our culture is so rubbish that the only way it could be sneaked onto the telly was in the reality-elimination format... which after hearing about your and Becca's watching of it sounds very convincing to me!

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

That's interesting! I have a strong feeling that the people taking part were chosen very carefully - not only because it wasn't in the interests of the show to precipitate a total meltdown. Dan, the guy with O.C.D., explained very eloquently that he'd wanted to take part in it in order to show other people with the condition that you could still have a real life, once it was under a fair degree of control and you learned coping mechanisms. I think he did himself proud in that goal.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I came in as they were cleaning the byre and watched ten minutes, the latter five with N. At that point we agreed that it was too exploitative by far for our palates, and turned it off. (To be fair, I'd have watched more of it had I been on my own, but he was quite put off by the whole concept, and I think his instinct was sound.) All the contestants seemed game and relaxed though, I'll grant you. The thing that struck me about the experts was the fact that they and they alone were wearing smart jackets (and ties in two cases), while the contestants were in jeans and Ts, etc. I wondered why they seemed so keen to make that visual distinction between the medics and rest. In fact, wouldn't it have been a funner programme still had we not known which of the 13 people taking part were the psychiatrists?

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

Don't think that's quite a fair assessment either - it's a pity that's the part you came in on though, as it was pretty nasty! Though of course, a job that lots of people do every day. Or are you saying that Becca and I have more of a taste for the exploitative than you two? [Think carefully before answering.]

It wouldn't have worked with nobody knowing who was who at all, as there were the questionnaires and interviews and the like. And why do you assume 'they' were keen on making any kind of visual distinction? Default assumption is that nobody was told what to wear, I'd imagine - beyond certain practicalities. (I think many of them brought their own wellies, frex.) And the thing Becca thought of immediately was that the mental health professionals' careers could be very seriously damaged indeed, were they to blow it in a significant way.

Now I'm wondering how they did the search for the people without the mental health issues!

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Or are you saying that Becca and I have more of a taste for the exploitative than you two?

Why, I'd no more suggest that than you'd suggest that N and I were being oversensitive! But we did feel it was exploitative all the same, and turned it off for that reason. I suppose if you have to have a "Guess the Mental Illness" show this one was probably as good as it gets. It was certainly many steps short of the Visit to Bedlam that it might have been, and I've nothing against the idea of a programme that shows (which I guess was the point?) that being mentally ill doesn't stop you being a person like anyone else. But is setting up tests designed to "flush them out" the best way of doing this? (I didn't at all mind the cow-cleaning as a task, by the way - it looked quite fun - but I'd definitely have winced at seeing people forced to do stand-up comedy.)

I'd be very surprised indeed if the producer, director and wardrobe people hadn't given considerable thought to the matter of clothes! Even for my humble and utterly clothes-irrelevant appearance on Codex I got given quite a lot of 'dos' and 'don'ts'. The sartorial divide between the medics and the rest seemed very striking to me, anyway.

[beccadelarosa.livejournal.com]

"The thing that struck me about the experts was the fact that they and they alone were wearing smart jackets (and ties in two cases), while the contestants were in jeans and Ts, etc. I wondered why they seemed so keen to make that visual distinction between the medics and rest."

THAT'S A VERY INTRIGUING POINT SIR. It's interesting that the experts were only wrong about someone who found it hugely important to hide her mental illness. Now that I think about it, I bet serious money that if any one of the doctors DID make a statement that seemed in any way uneducated, then it's been edited right out. Even though they're in the dark they're still very much portrayed as 'experts in their field', and professionals. I can't remember if we were told where any of the lab rats work. Well, 50% of them are insane, so God knows they don't count as working members of society. In conclusion, any way you look at it, I doubt the show's going to do big things for the way crazy people are viewed.

PS, I lied about the 'in conclusion' part. I think clothing has been quite important in mental health treatment for a while. Even if you ignore straitjackets and whatnot (those wacky olden days), in a lot of mental care facilities clothing is used as a reward and a punishment. Do something crazy, wear pyjamas/hospital gowns until you earn back the privilege of your own clothes. (I of course have no experience in this matter.) Sane beats crazy every time! What's that you say about some kind of visibly marked upper social echelon. Gosh I would never have said that. Maybe I'll write a thesis about it. You can mark it. Degrees for all!

[emmaco.livejournal.com]

I don't think I would ever have thought to watch such a show - at a glance it looks too much like a competition to act the most normal - so thanks for the info. The website looks like it's going to provide useful information, so I hope it's transmitted in the show too.

[lady-schrapnell.livejournal.com]

There definitely was a lot of information - though what we saw last night wasn't new information to us and Becca thought some of it was over-simplified. But then aside from the first-hand experience with depression and bipolar Becca's done a lot of research about those and anorexia as well, so it's hard to know how the level of information would be for someone who didn't have that background.

It did sound like a competition to act the most normal, you're right! Though there were NO prizes or penalties for fooling the professionals, which would have been ghastly. As I said in reply to gair, the guy with O.C.D. did a wonderful job telling why he'd chosen to take part, and what he'd hoped to show other people with the condition. It'll be very interesting to hear what the other participants have to say about their reasons for doing the show next week.